Ornithopter

In addition to how Petrovich already works, why not allow a mode in which the pilot dictate the priorities with direct commands, such as "Attack AAA", or "Attack Armor", etc (similar to how we command AI wingmen) and then Petro will automatically select a "default" target based on that. That way you don't have to be scrolling down the list of targets to find the most threatening target while it is already chewing you up with incoming fire. Wouldn't that be what the Copilot/Gunner would be doing in real life?

Well, you seem to be fixated on whether there is a "need" for such an aircraft, not whether there is a desire or want for such an aircraft. Frankly, there is no Need for a game like DCS at all, we could all just watch television for several hours each night, like the era of our parents. My guess is that the L-39 has sold a lot of copies for ED. Aerges has a topnotch Mirage, but I'll bet they also have a good customer base with their Aviojet. There is a Macchi too, which was once freeware, but by popular demand is now payware. As I said, I don't agree with the OP's premise that something like a Texan II would be a smart choice of Freeware for ED, because of it's assumed development costs. Of course a Trainer is not going to generate the buzz of such an iconic aircraft like the F-4. I'll bet the F-4 sold very well. I'll also bet that, due to it's complexity, it is also a very common Queen of many virtual hangars. I love the Phantom, but I also struggle to find the time or motivation to really get good at it. I enjoy simpler aircraft in addition to the complex ones. Certainly that can't be so uncommon?

The concept of a free Texan II is asking too much, I think. The other equivalent aircraft in DCS are all study-level, hi-fid simulations of the real aircraft, and of course cost money and time to develop to that level. The L-39 and C-101 can be picked up relatively cheaply during sales times, such as right now. If someone were to make a Texan II, I'd buy it because it looks like a pretty cool airplane. I don't understand the reason why people get so bent out of shape over the word "Trainer". A well simulated airplane is a well simulated airplane, and people can use it however they feel like, regardless of whether somebody else thinks there is a "need" for such an aircraft. Who cares? The only thing relavent is if there are enough people who think they can buy it and enjoy it, and the developer can make a profit. In the MSFS world, people are flying Cessna 172s and other light GA aircraft that can also be trainers IRL, but are also commonly used for just recreational flying. The Military trainers in DCS are a lot more advanced than that, and can be used as a sophisticated sim in their own right. DCS is of course geared for combat, but in my own use, I don't always feel like flying a Hornet, Tomcat, or Phantom and blowing things up. Those are a lot more complex, and suprisingly easy to forget with even a little disuse. I frequently like to fire up a simpler aircraft and fly it around like its a GA plane as I would in a civilian-oriented sim/game, enjoying wonderful scenery, challenging weather, or whatever. I'm not necessarily training or practicing skills to be effective in a different simulated front-line fighter aircraft in this game, I'm just flying around for it's own sake, probably sipping a beer and listening to some music too, enjoying the airplane I'm flying for what it is. And, if I do want to drop dumb bombs or strafe some trucks, or even engage in air to air missile and gun combat, I can do that with a C-101 or L-39 as well, and without having to pull out a Chuck's Guide for a refresher because I haven't flown a particular aircraft in a while.

I just tried out the F1 again after a few weeks, and yes, its pretty hard to keep straight. I don't recall it being so bad before, but maybe it was. If both feet don't exert exactly the same amount of brake force, away she goes. I thought I had fixed that mostly by putting a curve on my pedals, but I just went off the runway!!!lol. I might just map 'W' to use both brakes simultaneously and leave the landing braking to the keyboard instead of the toe brakes. Are people thinking this is a Bug, or is that just how squirelly the real airplane is?

The Supercarrier comes with a very thorough Operations Guide that covers all revovery and departure cases, all radio comms, LSO stuff, and terms. I would start by reviewing it, and then watching videos. But, actually, first I'd learn the jet thoroughly before I even touched the Carrier operatons.

Hi, I have a new problem with Simshaker For Aviators + Sound Module. Recently, I've started getting the following error: Simshaker no longer connect to DCS. I am almost 100% certain that this is related to my recently updated VPN, as the error does not occur when the VPN is paused. Other than turning off the VPN, which is not an optimal solution, what can I do?

Other than spot things and work the sight and shoot the missiles, what other responsibilities does the front seater really have, in real life?

Since drive space is obviously a concern for a lot of people whenever a new terrain is released, I found this post with info on how to do symbolic links for DCS terrains.

Muchocracker, LoL, you are trying to be reasonable again, and you know that hasn't really worked so far in this thread. Pilum has said that he is leaving the thread anyway, having said the same thing over and over ad nauseum, each subsequent TL;DR post only different from the previous one by the increasing level of obnoxiousness and self-righteousness. Most of the people on this thread seem to realize that despite us all wanting "realism", its ultimately a video game and that the developers will do their best with the public material available.

I guess the time has come to learn how to do symbolic links or something on Windows, because my 1TB DCS drive is starting to hurt. We can put a map on a different drive and get it to work, can't we?

I tend to snake down the runway in most planes, not just the F1. I reluctantly used the calibration tools to tweak my toe brakes (MFG Crosswind pedals) so that I get full brake deflection from each wheel at about 50-75% of the total movement range, and it helps a bit. An alternative, and probably better solution might be to physically adjust the pedal position and angle to better match my desktop setup and my feet. The difference with the F1 compared to other airplanes however, is that the aircraft seems to have very narrow gear and is therefore very tippy.

The Bullpup, by comparison, is clearly a very Dumb weapon. It might even rank up there with the dumbest weapons of all time!

Laser guided bombs, Mavericks, Walleyes, and Shrikes are sort of considered Smart. aren't they?

Interesting. The VVI is "instant" in the Phantom? There is a table in the real F-4E manual to calculate "altimeter lag", so I'm aware there is also that. My eyes gloss over that kind of stuff. However, I'm not of the impression that the the VVI works instantaneously. Are you guys sure of that? Generally, when I'm flying level, or level turning, I'm primarily referencing the movement of the Altimeter needles, and the VVI as secondary, because otherwise I tend to Porpoise too much, hence my advice to the OP. It seems that if I try to make small corrections based on the VVI, especially during a turn, I'll end up falling behind the needs of the aircraft, and my altitude keeping will suffer. But I don't seem to have that problem with the Altimeter. Frankly, I've spent too much time placing a velocity vector on the horizon line on a HUD, with planes like the Hornet, so have probably gotten very sloppy in general.

Don't know if you're doing this, but don't use your Vertical Velocity Indicator as a primary instrument during a turn. Watch your Altimeter and determine how your vertical speed is trending based on the movement of that needle, not the VVI, because the VVI lags, and so will your control inputs.